TexasCHLforum.com

I remember seeing this claim in an article last spring. That's the first time I recall anyone suggesting that the armed citizens who returned fire actually made things worse.

http://concealedcampus.org/2015/10/arme ... er-attack/

You can't help but feel for the lady but that is revisionist history seemingly without any basis in fact.

The answer to the topic of the OP is: No, in fact an armed citizen (A pharmacist IIRC) went up the tower with law enforcement to stop him.

Did she provide any details how the armed citizens allegedly slowed police response to her rescue?

First time I have heard this.

dlh

The deer rifles made him cover. They stopped him from shooting freely. They saved lives.

G.A. Heath wrote:The answer to the topic of the OP is: No, in fact an armed citizen (A pharmacist IIRC) went up the tower with law enforcement to stop him.

Allen Crum, a manager at the UT Co-op. The UT Police of the day weren't armed, and I don't think had radios. There were probably only a couple of them for the campus.

Simpler times. After midnight, there were two Austin patrol cars on the street most nights. One north of the river, one south.

While I sympathize with the victim over her injuries and the death of her fetus, it was not law abiding citizens who shot her; it was law-abiding citizens who risked themselves to aid outgunned police. I have to believe that even today a citizen who concealed carried might help an officer in need. I'd like to think so, that we would have his back as citizens in that long ago decade did.

I was 16 when Whitman climbed the tower and started his rampage. As you can imagine, it was all over the TV and radio news. Austin police and the DPS credited citizens returning fire as having reduced the number of casualties. Without them, Whitman would have had more time to kill.

The anti-gunners don't feel the least bit constrained by the truth.

Chas.

Crum showed the cops the way into the Tower under ground so they wouldn't be exposed to the sniper, according to one account. The "deer rifles" were impotent as far as hitting Whitman who was in the best sniper perch imaginable, but did distract him enough to keep casualties down and let the officers get up there in position to take Whitman out.

Martinez gave a lengthy interview about this, "Interview with Ramiro "Ray" Martinez, Texas Ranger retired. You can google it.

I was a student at UT 64-68, but not on campus that summer. Many friends were.

As true today as it was in 1964.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiGsHCpBGg4

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I was 16 when Whitman climbed the tower and started his rampage. As you can imagine, it was all over the TV and radio news. Austin police and the DPS credited citizens returning fire as having reduced the number of casualties. Without them, Whitman would have had more time to kill.

The anti-gunners don't feel the least bit constrained by the truth.

Chas.

We need to point out the lies of the anti-gunners every chance we get and don’t be afraid to call a lie a lie. If the article has a comments section, we need to post there, if not try to post something about it somewhere else.

If we can do this often enough their lies will cease to work for them and start working against them. Wouldn’t it be great if people stopped believing everything negative printed about guns, even if one particular article had some truth to it?

I was 11 at the time. However, I remeber the TV commentators crediting the public with their deer rifles keeping Whitman at bay.

VoiceofReason wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I was 16 when Whitman climbed the tower and started his rampage. As you can imagine, it was all over the TV and radio news. Austin police and the DPS credited citizens returning fire as having reduced the number of casualties. Without them, Whitman would have had more time to kill.

The anti-gunners don't feel the least bit constrained by the truth.

Chas.

We need to point out the lies of the anti-gunners every chance we get and don’t be afraid to call a lie a lie. If the article has a comments section, we need to post there, if not try to post something about it somewhere else.

If we can do this often enough their lies will cease to work for them and start working against them. Wouldn’t it be great if people stopped believing everything negative printed about guns, even if one particular article had some truth to it?

A couple of points.

1. This article is from those supporting campus carry, pointing out the anomalies in this witness's claims.

2. The claim that the shooters on the ground impeded and slowed rescue is preposterous on its face. The witness was wounded while Whitman was free to roam around unimpeded. Once the shooters started returning fire,he had to be more guarded, keep his head down. Shooting up at the tower didn't endanger rescuers.

3. She is a victim, not an expert. Other than that, she has no particular insight into the situation, any more than one of the shooters, except being a victim clothes one in a protective shield, absolved of all sin, and imbued with wisdom and truth in liberal orthodoxy.

JALLEN wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I was 16 when Whitman climbed the tower and started his rampage. As you can imagine, it was all over the TV and radio news. Austin police and the DPS credited citizens returning fire as having reduced the number of casualties. Without them, Whitman would have had more time to kill.

The anti-gunners don't feel the least bit constrained by the truth.

Chas.

We need to point out the lies of the anti-gunners every chance we get and don’t be afraid to call a lie a lie. If the article has a comments section, we need to post there, if not try to post something about it somewhere else.

If we can do this often enough their lies will cease to work for them and start working against them. Wouldn’t it be great if people stopped believing everything negative printed about guns, even if one particular article had some truth to it?

A couple of points.

1. This article is from those supporting campus carry, pointing out the anomalies in this witness's claims.

2. The claim that the shooters on the ground impeded and slowed rescue is preposterous on its face. The witness was wounded while Whitman was free to roam around unimpeded. Once the shooters started returning fire,he had to be more guarded, keep his head down. Shooting up at the tower didn't endanger rescuers.

3. She is a victim, not an expert. Other than that, she has no particular insight into the situation, any more than one of the shooters, except being a victim clothes one in a protective shield, absolved of all sin, and imbued with wisdom and truth in liberal orthodoxy.

Well written.

This: partly written by Charles Richards (My Cousin, a News Reporter at that time, who was there that day)

Here's the legendary H.D. "Doc" Quigg's report on the 1966 Texas Tower shooting (with reporting assistance from Kyle Thompson, Charles Richards, James T. Young, David Weissler and John Drollinger:
http://www.assaultweb.net/forums/archiv ... 37473.html

View Full Version : Doc Quigg's 1966 Report on Texas Tower Shooting
http://www.downhold.org/lowry/doc.html

http://www.assaultweb.net/forums/showth ... p?t=137473

Also, this article, partly written by Charles Richards, doesn't answer your question, but is interesting
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 1627&hl=en

=================

And I HATE using Wikipedia as a source... but
here it is for whatever value it has (little)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman